Category: Bryan E. Beyer
Blogging the Book of Isaiah: Authorship
Most biblical scholars do not affirm that the entire Book of Isaiah was written by the prophet Isaiah who lived at the end of the eighth and beginning of the seventh century B.C. I am one of those traditionalist that finds the arguments against a unified authorship unconvincing and therefore willing to assume the claims of tradition. At the end of the day it is the canonical standing of the book that really matters, but I find a unified authorship has less theological problems and no less historical problems.
Bryan E. Beyer does a good job of presenting both sides of the debate in Encountering the Book of Isaiah: A Historical and Theological Survey (153-161):
Multiple-authors:
(1) Time span: Is. 1-39 cover Judah’s troubles with Assyria while 40-66 focus upon Babylon. It would appear that whoever wrote 40-66 did not share the immediate concerns of whoever wrote 1-39. Whoever wrote the second part was around during Babylon’s empire.
(2) Subject matter: Also, in 40-48 King Cyrus of Persia is mentioned by name a couple of centuries before he came to power. This seems unlikely and the more natural explanation would be that the author was a contemporary of those events. It is rare for biblical prophecy to be that precise.
(3) Vocabulary and style: The author of 1-39 wrote a lot of narrative, many oracles, and some poetic passages, but none that were as detailed and rich as 40-66. The tune has changed as well. In 1-39 it is a bit pessimistic, while 40-66 are uplifting and hopeful.
There is no arguing against the fact that it is more logical that someone would have been in Babylon, watching the rise of Cyrus of Persia, who was a more poetic writer addressing a more hopeful time. It is not absurd to hold to multiple authors and there are even many evangelicals who do. I do not and I think Beyer’s reasons for singular authorship are convincing.
Singular author:
(1) Predictive prophecy: Of course, if God sees the future it is altogether possible that he could have told the prophet about Cyrus and the eventual fall of Babylon. In chapter thirty-nine we have Isaiah predicting Babylon’s rise at a time when Assyria was still the dominant power in the Near and Middle East.
(2) Different subject matter: There is nothing preventing the prophet Isaiah from finishing his own book on a hopeful note. There is no reason that he could not have written such amazing poetry and why couldn’t he have been the one to have these visions? It does seem odd, as Beyer notes, that if there is another author of 40-66 he disappears into history unknown while the lesser skilled prophet remains a prominent historical figure.
(3) Different vocabulary and style: Again, if the context of what Isaiah is addressing has changed, and he wants to end his own work with hopeful visions of the future, why could he not have written differently?
(4) Lack of chronological order: As I mentioned in my post a few days ago (see here) the chronological order of chapters 36-39 doesn’t match the literary order. It seems that Isaiah intentionally told a story about Babylon after telling some stories that happened later because he intended to tie it into 40-66′s address of Babylon’s future. Beyer notes at 2 Kings 18-20 does this very same thing even though it tends to go along a strict chronology when possible. He even argues that the author of 2 Kings 18-20 may have had access to Is. 36-39.
(5) Textual evidence: There has never, ever, ever been a transcript of the Book of Isaiah either lacking 40-66 or hinting that 1-39 and 40-66 were two books. Singular authorship has been assumed by Jews and Christians until the last two hundred years.
(6) NT quotations: There are several quotations in the NT that come from 40-66 that mention Isaiah as the author, e.g.:
- Is. 40.3 in Mt. 3.3
- Is. 40.3-5 in Lk. 3.4-6
- Is. 42.1-4 in Mt. 12.17-21
- Is. 53.1 in Jn 12.38
- Is. 53.4 in Mt. 8.17
- Is 65.1-2 in Rom. 10.20-21
Honestly, this often comes down to various premises related to Isaiah’s vision of Cyrus in my opinion. I am not saying this is the only motive for denying singular authorship, but likely the first and foremost. Of course, if you believe in a future seeing God then why couldn’t Cyrus be mentioned by name? Also, if you do not believe in a future seeing God that could name Cyrus what hope do we have that any of the visions of the new heaven and new earth in the age to come are of any worth?
Blogging the Book of Isaiah: Further thoughts on King Hezekiah
Who wouldn't be relieved to avoid Assyrian invasion?!
Earlier this morning (see here) I wrote about my befuddlement regarding YHWH God answering King Hezekiah’s plea to extend his life since it was during those additional fifteen years that his legacy would be tainted because he showed delegates from Babylon all his riches which eventually led to Babylon deciding to invade Judah after Hezekiah’s death (39.1-8). Bryan E. Beyer (Encountering the Book of Isaiah: A Historical and Theological Survey, 142-152) has provided a possible scenario that would make better sense of it. What if the prophet’s literary point is not written chronologically?
Beyer proposes that the events of 39.1-8 occurred before 38.1-22. In 39.1-8 the delegation is from the Babylonian king Merodach-Baladan seeking a political alliance with Hezekiah against Sennacherib of Assyria. Hezekiah becomes a bit arrogant as a host to Babylon’s delegates which provides Babylon with the insight they would use later to conquer Judea when Hezekiah’s son Manasseh is king. This makes more sense of Hezekiah’s prayer of relief in 39.8 that there would be peace in his day—that means Assyria would not win.
Assyria likely had already begun putting pressure on Hezekiah at this point and the prophet’s words that it would be Babylon in the days of his descendants that would conquer Judah was guarantee Assyria would not be victorious.
This may be the cause of Hezekiah’s boldness to go before YHWH in 37.14-20?
I wonder what the prophet’s literary motives may have been in reversing these stories? Thoughts?
Blogging the Book of Isaiah: הָעַלְמָ֗ה = Virgin? (7.14)
Let me begin by stating up front that I do not think that the Prophet Isaiah intended anything like a virgin birth when he states “Behold, the young woman will be with child and bear a son…” in 7.14
(הִנֵּ֣ה הָעַלְמָ֗ה הָרָה֙ וְיֹלֶ֣דֶת בֵּ֔ן). Neither do I think the first evangelist (Mt. 1.22-23) misused this passage when he wrote “Behold, the virgin shall be with child and shall bear a son…” (Ἰδοὺ ἡ παρθένος ἐν γαστρὶ ἕξει καὶ τέξεται υἱόν). The LXX translator already made the decision at one point to choose a more narrow semantic range for his interpretation of הָעַלְמָ֗ה as ἡ παρθένος. So the evangelist did have a text that provided him with Scriptural “support” for his interpretation of the story of the virgin birth.
As an aside this is something I find interesting. There does not seem to be any indication that the Jews of this era expected a virgin-born Messiah. At least none of which I am aware. I know some detractors from the story of the virgin birth note that there are stories of gods being born from virgins, but I don’t think the stand-alone Christology of the First Gospel is as emphatic about Jesus’ divine characteristics as it is his messianic qualifications. If this is so it would seem that there may have very well been an event that made the evangelist search the Scriptures for some evidence that this was foreseen by the prophets rather than the way it is often presented as the evangelist thought this passage from the Book of Isaiah said something about a virgin-born Messiah and/or deity so the evangelist had to construct a story about Jesus to make it appear as if he fulfilled this prophecy. The immediate context of Is. 7.14 does not demand a virgin-born anyone.
In the original narrative הָעַלְמָ֗ה may or may not have referred to a virgin. What is more important is that there is a certain woman in view who maybe would conceive a son for Ahaz or maybe from Isaiah (it is hard to tell: though 8.3 does have Isaiah fathering a son through a prophetess the child is named Maher-shalal-hash-baz or “swift is the booty, speedy is the prey” which seems to have a different tone than Emmanuel meaning “God with us”). In this context what is important is that the child’s birth signifies a clock is ticking toward judgment upon the kings of Israel and Aram.
The evangelist does note this context, as I wrote yesterday, and I think he applies the judgment of kings to the judgment of Herod. This still does not seem to be a sufficient cause for creating a virgin birth narrative. Rather, it seems to me that there was an event that was told as a virgin birth narrative in the early church that forced the evangelist back to the prophets and he made the connection between the LXX translation and Herod’s death as some sort of “fillfullment” (as Bryan E. Beyer wrote in his book Encountering the Book of Isaiah, p. 74).
It seems to me very straightforward that the young woman’s status as a virgin or not a virgin is a secondary issue lost to history. The Prophet foresaw an immediate sign tied into immediate events related specifically to Judah and their King, Ahaz. Nevertheless, I think this makes the use in Mt. 1.23 all that much more dramatic. Since the evangelist had no internal reason to see Is. 7.14 as applied to Messiah (even with the LXX translation, I do not see any good reason to read this as a messianic text in and of itself), it seems that there is good reason to suppose an external reason.
Now, I know virgin births do not happen. Also, I know resurrections do not happen. That does not mean a virgin birth and a resurrection did not happen! I do not have any problem with the doctrine of the virgin birth as I examine how the evangelist read this text and applied it. Rather, I think it serves as good reason for me to assume that something like a virgin birth occurred which led people to seek for a sign from Scripture that God had foretold such an awkward event!
See also: My post examining another connection between Is. 7.14 and Mt. 1.23 here.
